Cowspiracy is a documentary now being screened

October 4, 2014 7:03 AM

Cowspiracy is a crowdfunded documentary now being screened that examines the environmental impact of animal agriculture and seeks to examine why prominent environmental groups have apparently not made it a focus of their efforts. David Robinson Simon, the author of Meatonomics who appears in the film, interviews filmmakers Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn.

The Wildlife News calls the movie a home run. Jayson Lusk argues in The Wall Street Journal that "Cheeseburgers won't melt the polar ice caps."

Amanda Ladke, writing for BEEF Daily wrote that ranchers aren't going to like what they see. She argued that the film exaggerates the amount of water used in beef production. Blogger Loghan Call took issue with her points, leading to a back and forth. (And more from BEEF Daily.)

The film is likely to garner more debate as it reaches a larger audience, not just between the beef industry and its critics, but among the environmentalists who are the true target of the call to action in the film.

Writing for SFWeekly, Tiffany Do offers some criticisms of the tactics used in the film:

The between-the-lines thesis of "meat eaters are the enemy" is backed by born-again vegans and former ranchers and farmers. Several clips of poaching and butchering animals reinforce this sentiment. There's even an unflattering shot of a heavy-set woman, a representative of Animal Agriculture Alliance, for what seemed like fat-shaming purposes (the audience came alive with laughter over the wide-angle shot). The film even goes to bash vegetarians since they're consumers of the delicious, but forbidden, dairy products. No one is safe from the vegan filmmakers' wrath.

posted by Drinky Die (32 comments total)

No one is safe from the vegan filmmakers' wrath.

I'd watch that slasher movie.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:24 AM on October 4, 2014 [20 favorites]

But seriously, while I haven't seen the movie I'm familiar with the climate change argument against large-scale livestock farming and it's generally sound. The operations use an enormous amount of energy and water (not to mention the impacts from increased corn production to make all the feed) and leads to both water and air pollution from the animals' waste. But it's a big business and LOL CHEESEBURGERS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING AREN'T HIPPIES DUMB, so nothing will get done.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:28 AM on October 4, 2014 [10 favorites]

seeks to examine why prominent environmental groups have apparently not made it a focus of their efforts.

Probably because they've decided that having the support of meat-eaters for the causes they DO focus on trumps alienating them by focusing on meat production. Hardly a con(sorry, cow)spiracy.
posted by Itaxpica at 7:35 AM on October 4, 2014 [8 favorites]

Honest question: what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way? Keeping them all alive but not eating them would not diminish the environmental impact of farming, so if that's the plan then it removes the environmental plank from their argument. So what's the plan, then? Sterilize many/all animals and wait a generation? Have a massive (and I mean massive) cull of chicken, cows, and pigs?
posted by erlking at 7:56 AM on October 4, 2014

Meat is murder and methane, but also tasty. I know I'm doing it wrong, but I plead burnt ends.

Maybe a better crowdfund would be to start a chain of tasty veggie fast food places. Doesn't have to be much healthier than a cheeseburger. Just has to be available, cheap and edible on the go. Look to India for inspiration; they've been doing it for a while.

(I miss drunken pakora attacks …)
posted by scruss at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2014 [4 favorites]

Honest question: what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way?

It comes up really often in any discussions regarding ending meat eating. The short answer is that will never happen so who cares? Longer answer involves large scale cow retirement communities in Florida but that is veering off topic here a bit.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:24 AM on October 4, 2014 [9 favorites]

what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way?

It's a weird question, because it's based on two faulty assumptions: (1) That the current large populations of beef cattle and other livestock in the Western world are somehow naturally occurring, and (2) that if this effort was successful, it would happen in some immediate global shift.

Neither of those are true. The livestock numbers go up and down each year in response to the what the ranchers think the demand will be next year and the year after that. They exercise near-complete control over the breeding/acquisition of new heads. Sometimes they correctly predict a trend and make money, sometimes they come up short (or any number of diseases affects a herd) and the price of beef goes up because supply is short. (This, in a nutshell, is what speculation in cattle futures or pork bellies is all about.)

Which leads to #2: Barring some massive cattle pandemic or food-borne virus affecting humans, the only way this ever happens is for demand of meat to lessen over time. The demand slows and prices decrease, so ranchers make the decision to stock less, which saves them money in the short term and hopefully (for them) gooses the price back up because of a smaller supply. The goal for vegan activism is to drive down the demand over a longer period and keeping it down, pushing the profits of raising cattle down to a lower plateau.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:52 AM on October 4, 2014 [12 favorites]

The short answer is that will never happen so who cares?

Yeah, I was going to say that this is a hypothetical along the lines of "what if the earth suddently stopped rotating?" Success would not mean that kind of success, it would mean a phase out that would involve the present generation of meaty beasts getting all ate up more or less as normal.

The operations use an enormous amount of energy and water (not to mention the impacts from increased corn production to make all the feed) and leads to both water and air pollution from the animals' waste.

The waste of productive land and destruction of ecologically indispensible forest, particularly rain forest, is the biggest one in my book. People say correctly that climate is not the same thing as weather, but in South America deforestation, largely done for ranching, is actually changing both, in very visible and obvious ways. To say nothing of the endless list of other serious problems it causes.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:56 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

One thing that could make all the difference is cultured meat. For some reason people go "eww" about it, which makes absolutely no sense to me. How could it possibly squick you out more than the conditions under which cattle are raised and slaughtered now? Hell, the lack of exposure to fecal matter alone would be enough to justify the switch.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:14 AM on October 4, 2014 [4 favorites]

It's a major derail to stop discussing what we can do today until you figure out what to do in some weird hypothetical future that will never happen.

Besides, we already went into this same derail in July so if you are actually curious, you can read the responses to that.
posted by tofu_crouton at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2014 [3 favorites]

Start a chain of tasty veggie fast food places. Doesn't have to be much healthier than a cheeseburger.

Let me introduce you to Australia's "I can't believe it's not meat" burger chain, Lord of the Fries.
posted by brushtailedphascogale at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2014 [4 favorites]

Honest question: what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way?

I wasn't aware there was a problem with old livestock. There has not ever been a "beginning RIGHT NOW" moment. If some miracle occurred and massive reform comes about, no one would say "ok, no more killing cows/chickens/etc starting at 5pm today." It would be a year or two or five out and all the animals in the system would get processed like they are today.
posted by nevercalm at 9:21 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

Sorry that came out as more abrupt that I meant it to. You sound sincere, and it is an interesting question, but I notice a trend in which posts about meat eating never actually address the topic because we instead address a slew of hypothetical situations instead.

I wish the back and forth about the water stats between Ladke and Call actually used relevant examples. Telling me that wearing clothes wastes water is not actionable for me. That's part of the argument that Call makes, but he just reframes the stats and neither really show me other options. If I was a meat eater who wanted to make a difference, is changing my diet really the single biggest thing I could do?

I assume that's the argument Cowspiracy makes, but I haven't watched it.
posted by tofu_crouton at 9:23 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

There was an interesting article recently in the Philly Inquirer about local dairy farmers efforts to reduce their environmental impact. It was obviously written with industry input so needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but still good to see it's something they are thinking about.


http://mobile.philly.com/health/?wss=/philly/health&id=277289421
posted by sepviva at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

Reminds me of this previous post on the blue about industrial versus personal consumption: the disproportional guilt of individuals versus corporations is palpable.
posted by tmcw at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2014 [6 favorites]

everybody eat one half the meat currently in your diet....staaarting....NOW!

then we'll do it again next year. should help.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:26 AM on October 4, 2014 [2 favorites]

If I was a meat eater who wanted to make a difference, is changing my diet really the single biggest thing I could do?

Probably not the *biggest*, but really surprisingly not-complicated. You have a lot of control over your food spending, compared to other system inputs.

...Just has to be available, cheap and edible on the go...

well, the least common denominator veggie fast-food when I went off the flesh in the early '90s was taco bell. don't need a crowd-fund for that. there's a ton of options these days. chipotle/qdoba, burger king has a veggie patty, as does subway. where i live, there are infinity family-owned mexican places w/drive through. sonic has grilled cheese...
posted by j_curiouser at 10:36 AM on October 4, 2014 [2 favorites]

the season of the cricket approaches
posted by young_son at 10:37 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

I was vegetarian for a bunch of years basically because I thought that meat was bad for the environment. I recently stopped basically because meat is tasty. So that's my bias up front.

After a brief google this is the best apples-to-apples comparison of water usage per pound (which according to google's nutrition info is more or less equivalent to grams of protein)

This is of course a soy ad, so grain of salt. In particular I bet those numbers are making the assumption that the cows are fed off of soy and corn, not grazed... but that's pretty standard for feedlots afaik.

These graphics also don't really say anything about other forms of environmental impact, like runoff and land use and air pollution and oil use, but I bet it runs about the same.

Bottom line beef is worse for the environment than getting your protein elsewhere, probably by a factor of 2-4. That seems kinda weak for the title of worst industry for the environment evar, but what do I know?
posted by contrarian at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

Get a MeatShake!

Drive thru

The Confrontation
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:06 AM on October 4, 2014

erlking: "Honest question: what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way?"

Oh boy, my chance to shine. The question as phrased is dumb. But, the question of what happens to the outstanding cattle is interesting, because of the processing chain involved with livestock.

So here's one possibility. There's an artificial deadline set by some governmental agency. The cwt price for cattle drops as the deadline approaches, perhaps undercutting the cost of feed/ silage within the week of the deadline.

Processors deal with record demand as ranchers attempt to zero out inventory. Larger processors (National Beef, Cargill, etc) perhaps instituting three shifts on the floor. Processing costs go up due to lowered input prices. Processor output prices may go out of statistical control (e.g. expansion of σ ), while remaining relatively stable on average.

Segmentation of the processor work load may occur, where the slaughter of animal happens en-masse, leaving jointing and cutting for later dates. Carcasses are cleaned and frozen. Whole frozen animals would, at this time, command a lower price than freshly processed ones at first, while experiencing an uptick on the long tail as fresh beef supplies drain from the market. An increase in freezer storage costs occurs.

There would be a catastrophic drop in feed prices. If all large animal farming is banned, corn, soy and hay would plummet, but would experience price drops as demand relaxes sharply. Related inputs (pharma, misc industrial services) would have product lines/ service lines close. Mainstream large animal vets would become a difficult career choice. If permitted, however, sheep/ ostrich/ emu/ etc ranching might take off.

After the ban date, animals would be shipped off to other inputs: dairy farmers (assuming milk is not banned) and international markets. Depending on how the ban is implemented, imports of foreign beef may increase, and countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico may be the primary purchasers of this stock in preparation to import American beef back to America. Those foreign markets could extract bargain prices from ranchers -- nobody wants to hold an animal they can't market.

Depending on how terrible prices become, it may become cost-effective to kill animals and grind up into industrial materials, or simply bury. Either of these possibilities are both last-ditch actions, though.
posted by boo_radley at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2014 [6 favorites]

everybody eat one half the meat currently in your diet....staaarting....NOW!

...Ugh, okay, done. That took some effort, but I'm through it.

Was I the first to finish? What do I win?
posted by ODiV at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2014 [5 favorites]

The amount of water used in beef production varies quite a lot depending on region. That also determines whether or not the water is "wasted." If water is everywhere as rain and no irrigation is even required, it's not exactly the same as piping in a bunch of water to feed cows in the desert. Either way, I'd rather see water managed by pricing it for commercial purposes based on its value than trying to micromanage what people eat.

High input costs are already leading to declining beef production and consumption. My father is a hobby farmer and acquired most of his cattle at auctions during recent droughts (particularly in Texas) when other farmer's couldn't afford to buy feed grown elsewhere or water them. Our farm doesn't require any irrigation, so we were able to keep them, though naturally-irrigated land in Wisconsin can support far fewer cattle and our beef is far more expensive. It's possible as the climate changes and efforts are made to price scarce resources at a government level, that beef will shift to being more and more of a luxury product.
posted by melissam at 12:21 PM on October 4, 2014 [3 favorites]

Depending on how terrible prices become, it may become cost-effective to kill animals and grind up into industrial materials, or simply bury. Either of these possibilities are both last-ditch actions, though.

This scenario actually happened with the American horse slaughter ban at a less dramatic level. Some horses were killed, others abandoned, others shipped to other countries to be slaughtered.
posted by melissam at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

We may get folks to cut down on their meat consumption, but good luck trying to pull the ooey gooey delicious cheese from their hands.

I was so, so skinny before I discovered cheese. :-/
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2014

There are some interesting things going on in vegan cheese using GMO yeast:

Oakland’s Counter Culture Labs and Sunnyvale’s BioCurious are teaming up to make vegan cheese in the lab. But this is no dubious nut or soy cheese. We’re talking the real deal—only no animals were harmed, or even directly involved, in the making of the cheese.

A lot of people swear by Daiya too, I think it can be okay in applications like pizza but not so much for just eating it plain along with some nice fruit and wine. Cheese is the main reason I call myself a mostly vegan vegetarian, treat myself to it occasionally.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:25 PM on October 4, 2014 [3 favorites]

Drinky Die -- I think the lab-grown leather mentioned in that article is even more interesting than that crazy GMO cheese!
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 3:55 PM on October 4, 2014

Drinky Die -- Daiya isn't bad (the shreds are great for casseroles, the slices good for veggie burgers, and their garlic jalapeno wedge is the only one I will eat on its own; the others need heat to be truly cheesy), but I've been working towards making my own vegan cheeses with rejuvelac so as to get that really unctuous cheese flavor and texture. It's actually fun making my own, rather than buying them.
posted by Kitteh at 4:11 PM on October 4, 2014 [1 favorite]

When you have a big block of something similar to sharp cheddar I can pair with 10 beers, get back to me. I will buy this product.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:28 PM on October 4, 2014

Actually, we're going to work on cheddar and brie in the coming weeks. We just started the rejuvelac for this batch and then when we get them into the molds, we'll look into aging them. It can be done! We're using Miyoko Schinner's book as a guide.
posted by Kitteh at 4:43 PM on October 4, 2014 [4 favorites]

Honest question: what do animal agriculture abolitionists envision doing with billions of livestock if they suddenly won their cause in a massive, wide-scale way?

The question may be realistically phrased as what would happen if cheaper meat could suddenly be produced in labs with no restrictions? The answer would be a sudden decline in most raised meat prices, assuming quality parity, followed by people getting out of the business in the short term, with feed prices collapsing along the way, probably being sold to China.

If I was a meat eater who wanted to make a difference, is changing my diet really the single biggest thing I could do?

The demand for meat will never go away as humanity increases, but it can be reduced quickly by raising prices with special taxes and with all subsidies removed. To personally abstain from meat minimally lowers demand per abstainer, but it can also lower the price of a steady supply and thus may encourage consumption across all meat eaters, especially as demand for other things rises relative to meat. The best approach is a special tax, like we do on gas, cigarettes, alcohol, and hopefully sugar. If we can't tax socially harmful things and subsidize healthy things, there is no sound reason for taxes, or government. Also, guilt only goes so far before it looks like the psychological manipulation and mind control it really is. I would avoid anyone using it like an affinity scam (as conditional friendship) or any method to make you feel personally responsible for any problem, because they are only getting started. Social problems aren't solved by spreading ancient diet-guilt. The dilemma is not unlike a pity charity, versus a major public-sponsored program to address a problem.
posted by Brian B. at 10:11 AM on October 5, 2014

I feel like a lot of these problems would solve themselves if we were to simply stop giving the cattle industry subsidized water rates and stop subsidizing corn in general. If a steak cost $30, the demand, and associated environmental impact of mass cattle ranching, would sharply drop, and it would return to the luxury food it once was. Meat used to be expensive, because it takes a lot of energy input to produce.

Is there any actual benefit to these subsidies other than producing cheap meat and corn products? Are those really things we need more of?
posted by Feyala at 2:59 PM on October 5, 2014 [2 favorites]